http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/wapos_eugene_ro.php"Let me try to offer up two thoughts which I think are not mutually exclusive and are both true at the same time:
(1) Bill Clinton's evocation of Jesse Jackson's South Carolina victories on the day of the primary vote between Obama and Hillary was dumb and reckless. The comparison of the two "black candidates" in this fashion was an unseemly injection of race into the discussion.
(2) At the same time, in the current toxic environment, it's also dumb and reckless for prominent columnists to seize on the most inflammatory possible interpretation of Bill's motives and adopt it as absolute fact.
Take a look at how Washington Post writer Eugene Robinson characterized Bill's comments today:
The only possible reason for invoking Jackson's name was to telegraph the following message: Barack Obama is black, so if a lot of black people decide to vote for him -- doubtless out of racial solidarity -- it doesn't really mean squat.
And the reasons to send that message would be to devalue an Obama victory in South Carolina; to inoculate the Clinton campaign against potential losses next Tuesday in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee -- Southern states with large African American populations; and, most important, to pigeonhole Obama as "a black candidate" as opposed to a candidate who, among other characteristics, is black.
That would help Hillary Clinton in other states, because the more prominent race becomes in this campaign, the more likely it is that she will win the nomination.
Robinson tells us that the "only possible reason" Bill could have had for bringing up Jackson was the most controversial one: He was saying Obama's black support "doesn't really mean squat" and was trying to pigeonhole Obama as the "black candidate" to provoke a white backlash nationally. Other writers, such as Christopher Hitchens, have grabbed on to this as the only conceivable explanation for Bill's motives.
But here's the thing: The plain fact is that this is not the "only possible reason" Bill could have had for bringing this up.
The original exchange is here. Any fair reading of it suggests two possible interpretations. The first is that Bill -- having been asked why it takes two Clintons to take on Obama -- was talking specifically about South Carolina. By this reading he was simply saying Obama's appeal to blacks makes him formidable in South Carolina -- and explains why it takes two Clintons to challenge him there. This interpretation is as least plausible, since the comments came on the day of voting in that state. And if it's correct, Bill's comments, while unseemly and historically reductive, aren't anywhere near as cynical or controversial as suggested by pundits like Robinson.
The second, far less charitable interpretation is that Bill was talking not just about South Carolina, but about the overall contest. In this reading he was saying that Jesse Jackson's strength in the state -- and Obama's -- were mainly due to his black support and didn't speak to any general election strength. So maybe Bill meant that any South Carolina victory for Obama -- and hence the black support that it was built on -- "didn't mean squat" in the long run. Did Bill also intend to pigeonhole Obama as the "black candidate" and provoke a white backlash? It's perfectly possible. But it's just not possible to conclude this unequivocally based on what Bill actually said.
Which of these ways did Bill mean his comments? Guess what: I don't know -- and neither does Robinson. I do know, however, that Robinson's claim that the "only possible reason" for Bill's remarks was that he was implementing a cynical long-term racial strategy is plainly false. Any of the above interpretations is "possible."
Bottom line: While we do know that Bill was making a dumb and unseemly racial comment, we simply don't know precisely what Bill's motives for saying these things were. When prominent columnists pretend that they do, they're just polluting the discussion further when what we really need are reasoned and measured responses, such as those offered by Jesse Jackson and even Barack Obama himself".
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
